Thanks for the E-mails.

Thanks for your E-mails a couple have asked what all this is really about? I have posted most of the details in January and February but I’ll go over the main problem I have with the council here. In fact, my problem is far from being with the whole council it’s with a few councillors who have made me out to be dishonest when in fact it was them who were dishonest. I have always tried to make it clear that my issue is with those few councillors and no one else. Though I do find it difficult to understand why good councillors are prepared to protect them.

I was verbally attacked very loudly by a councillor, in front of the whole council and public gallery during the inaugural council meeting for the new council term following the 2011 elections. That attack was entirely unprovoked and was certainly not the kind of behaviour you would expect of an elected council official.

Initially I insisted the councillor in question should apologise for his actions but soon realised that was an unachievable expectation and informed the council I would accept a simple assurance from the council (as a corporate body) that such an outburst would not happen again. The council refused to give any such assurance, I then submitted a complaint regarding the incident to the Standards Committee.

Those deliberations are a matter of public record and can be found on the East Riding of Yorkshire Web site under the heading “Standards Committee”. Following an investigation a decision was made that no further action would be taken against the councillor because there was a balance in witness statements that said the councillor was the aggressor and an equal number said I was the aggressor. That equality was achieved by four councillors putting in false and very clearly dishonest statements that reversed the roles and put me in the position of being the aggressor while the actual aggressor was put forward as the victim, which effectively got the councillor off the hook.

I protested to the Monitoring Officer and gave a lengthy account of why I considered those councillors had lied to the Standards Committee, there was a pretty much point blank refusal to establish the truth. Following that decision a number of councillors wrote to the Monitoring Officer to protest at the unjust outcome and the method used by a few (4) councillors to achieve it.

There has been what I can only describe as a “Council lockdown” on this subject ever since and therefore the whole council is now protecting the 4 dishonest councillors amongst them.

I’m afraid my conscience would give me no choice as a councillor under those circumstances, I would have to either speak out to avoid further damage to the council’s reputation or resign and insist the matter be resolved. I was prepared to accept a simple assurance from the council that there would be no repeat, I was prepared to accept such an assurance and leave the matter there to avoid further unpleasantness. What I am not prepared to do is quietly allow 4 Preston Parish Councillors to make me out to be a liar by lying themselves, they have by their actions also implied that the Council Chairman, Vice Chairman (at the time) and other councillors were also dishonest in their statements!!

Some people have suggested that I’m bringing the council into disrepute, I disagree, 4 councillors brought Preston Parish Council into disrepute the moment they submitted false statement to the Standards Committee while I am merely trying to clear my name as a result of those false statements.

If these people are prepared to be so dishonest to the Standards Committee on such a piffling item how can we possibly expect them to be honest when conducting other council business in our name?

This is not about me and a couple of councillors, it’s about honesty in public office and the type of people we want to have representing us, I would much prefer to have honest upstanding fellow residents who are connected to our community, have our best interests at heart and who actually care about residents, people we are able to place our trust in. The councillors in question do not meet any of those criteria.

It has been suggested that a petition be submitted to East Riding demanding the issue be resolved in the interests of the Parish and our Council, I’m unsure how that would work, you cannot compel people to have memories least of all accurate memories. Having said that I cannot see how new councillors in their first ever meeting, as councillors with senses heightened would not be unable to recall the incident or at least the main elements even to this day. Are residents interested enough in the people who look after their affairs to take part in such an exercise and seek the truth, I really don’t know but it’s now under consideration.

Reply to "A Preston Parish Councillor"

Response to, A Preston Parish Councillor.

You will see from my initial response that I’m delighted with this particular comment for obvious reasons.

You gave your apologies for not being courageous enough to comment using your name, please don’t feel that way there is really no need for it, I find you exceptionally brave to comment as you have. Your clearly on the council to do your best for Preston because, like others, you recognise this “spectacle” is damaging our village reputation but in your case you have the guts to put forward a possible solution and bring this episode to a close at the risk of a personal cost to yourself, I do hope your vision can be matched by others taking appropriate action. You have not simply suggested I be quiet and go away but that I have a right to clear my name by any means open to me, I thank you for that.

I’m sure there will be those who question the authenticity of your comment due to the lack of identity and justifiably so, I too would question it on those same grounds. This comment was placed a couple of days ago in response to someone else’s comment and I did not feel comfortable publishing it, again for obvious reasons. I was then called by this councillor and after a few niceties’ I was asked why the comment had not been published, I then felt comfortable in publishing it.

I know you will understand when I say my confidence in East Riding is not high at this point but if I feel confident in any such process I would abide by the outcome and end this action.

Again thank you and lets hope others have the bravery you have shown and follow suite, we would all like to see the truth come out.

Response to "my name my business"

Response to "my name, my business"

Sorry! I gave a short answer to a short comment I should maybe have answered more fully, I just felt it was plain rude and didn’t really deserve my time but, others may have the question in mind and be interested in a response.

I suppose it’s a difficult one to answer even though I have considered it a few times since starting this blog, even if the answer was “yes, I’d walk away”, I don’t really see what they can do about it so the question has a kind of non-entity air about it and I guess I have never really felt the need to answer it. I accept my main personal issue is the honesty one because that suggested that I was being dishonest and if that wasn’t there I would probably not be doing this blog, the obvious question to me would have been “could I be wrong and the councillors innocent?”

The other questions about how the council operate and use our money are questions that affect all residents and if everybody else is happy for the council to act and operate the way it does, who am I to argue? I would say “ok there’s no point in my taking issue with things so let them get on with it”. By taking that stance I wouldn’t have the inconvenience of feeling the need to have taken this step, there are plenty of other things I can be doing!

I have looked at this honesty issue and approached it from the point that I’m mistaken and it didn’t happen the way I remember and the 3 currently sitting councillors have done nothing wrong at all. I have then broken the incident down into it’s individual elements and tried to make them fit into the ‘presumption of innocence’, everything falls apart from the moment I try to make those elements fit that assumption.

If I had made a mistake and not recalled the incident correctly 7 other councillors who were sat around the table must have also made the same mistakes as me when recalling the incident independently of me and of each other for the innocence theory to have any credibility. I have done a correlation analysis, and the only strong correlation is that the two sets of statements point to two different incidents, that’s obviously not the case. The only conclusion must be that one set of statements are correct and the other set of statements are wrong, it isn’t possible for them both to be right, the final question is which statements are which.

It’s no co-incidence that the 2 sets of statements are also divided into two distinct sets of councillors, old and new. The old councillors who put in false statements must have gathered round to protect a long standing colleague who they had worked with for many years and because they very clearly had an axe to grind with me. The rights and wrongs of their actions were very clearly not of any concern to them. New councillors on the other hand have put forward statements as they actually remember the incident and clearly cover the incident as described in my complaint, new councillors didn’t at the time have any axe to grind with me or have a long standing colleague to protect.

The false statements were so precisely similar in wording and event recollection, the only way they could have been any closer would have been to compile one letter, make a few copies and then sign one each.

The statements that I know to be wrong have me as the aggressor who abused a councillor sat immediately in front of me (I was stood up commenting on a statement by the Chairman of the Council) my behaviour was allegedly threatening, abusive and aggressive. The councillor on the other hand sat impassively calm and answered my abuse in a calm soft voice without turning to face me and paying no heed to the threat I apparently posed to the back of his head. That scenario is simply not worthy of comment as it’s far too implausible and fanciful!!

What actually happened was, while I was responding to the chairman a councillor spun around in his chair immediately in front of me and attacked me verbally in an extremely loud and aggressive manner. He was greatly agitated and there was a threat that it may well turn into a physical assault on my person, the councillors face was reddened puffed up with his jugular veins being extended by anger and threateningly pointing his finger and leaning towards me.

I immediately responded to the threat by challenging the councillor’s version of events and being as aggressive as he was in order to defend myself.

A councillor who made a statement that he showed no aggression at all either verbally or in his body language and that she was able to categorically state that the councillor did not turn to face me. This is the same councillor who had to take the aggressive councillor by the arm (she was sat next to him and paid very close attention to the whole incident) and turn him back towards the table telling him it wasn’t worth it in order to calm him down. This councillor was absolutely dishonest (as were all three of them) and she is looking after the financial affairs of the Parish and making decisions on our behalf, and we wonder why the parish finances are in such a mess!!

These three councillors have never extended any “generosity of spirit” towards me and therefore have no moral right to expect any in return.

My opinion is that the people who gave false statements do not care about the reputation of the council and have no regard for the views of any residents and have no respect for Preston so long as they remain in a position to influence the affairs of Preston, for what reason I really don’t know.

Response to Jan, Hull.

Response to Jan, Hull.

Comment from Jan, Hull,

Wheres your list of problems with council can you make a list?

The list is long and I would be repeating a lot of what I have already posted in this blog. Can I respectfully suggest that you read the postings and you will hopefully have some detail to the main headings I have listed below but this is by no means exhaustive.

1.  Illegal use of public funds.
     Thousands of pounds of resident’s money has been illegally spent without council authorization.

2.  Wasting of public funds.

     To date the council has wasted more than £20,000 of public funds by starting ill thought out                   projects, spending thousands of pounds of public money to get them started and then promptly               abandoning them.

3.   Unlawful Council Activities.

      The council simply fails to observe the legal requirements placed upon them by the legislation that          governs how councils can and can’t operate. The list is long and the potential consequences can be        enormous.

4.   Dishonesty in Public Office.

      There are a few councillors who gave false statements to an Official Investigation by the Standards         Committee. This in my view brings Preston Parish Council into disrepute and highlights all that is           bad about the council. I would probably list this as my major problem because they made me out to       be untruthful.

You might ask “why do you bother”, I bother because I care and I happen to think Preston deserves better than this and could be so much better off financially if the mistakes of the past are recognised and Council Policies developed to ensure they can’t happen in the future.

Residents would be far better off if the council included them in the governing process and worked with residents on how Preston can be improved rather than have the pompous attitude of “leave it to us we know best”. Prior to 2011 residents were simply dismissed out of hand as unimportant and a great irritant to the process of how the council wished to govern our village. It isn’t quite that bad now but the council under the influence of surviving councillors from the previous administration still don’t include residents to the extent they are actually required to. That may be a contributing factor to the election that never was, scheduled for 18^th July 2013. I believe very few residents know what they are or are not able to do because the leadership from the council is so poor and there is virtually no information released by the council, it simply isn’t in their interest to release information, the less you residents know the less you can pull them up on!!!.........it just happens to be a fact and still appears to be councils unwritten policy!

To-day Preston is a small village of approx. 3,200 (Preston North I believe is about 1900) residents and although I disagree with how the Play Park project that has been progressed so far I am convinced that if the council were more inclusive and connected to residents there would be a Play Park in place today and the village I’m sure would be rejoicing.

As a resident 3 years ago who hadn’t been to a council meeting in his life, I was blissfully unaware of how our Parish Council operated. I started to attend council meetings in 2010 when we as a group of residents were opposing a development.

The more meetings I went to the more appalled I was to find just how the council operated and treated residents as opposed to how it should operate (I didn’t know then how it should operate it was just so obviously wrong and the council was so arrogant and dismissive) and how as a consequence residents missed out on so much. I was also disgusted at how the council treated me as an individual at that time, I responded in kind so I can’t claim any moral high ground!

Some people say the finer details of Local Government Administration are of no interest to them because they have more important things they wish to do in the village. I was guilty of that mistake too, it’s when you find out just what those details are you also realise how bad thing are and how much better they could be if they were tackled and put right. If you take the trouble to get to know those finer points you will get to where you want to be much quicker. Residents can be all powerful and have huge influence on a council but to achieve that they have to get to know the rules (that way you won't be fooled) and organise themselves.

Faced with such strength of opinion the council would have little choice but to release information and your understanding would from this point bound ahead, there should be no stopping you as residents.

In any event if we leave those fine details to others we will never know whether or not they’re doing their best for us within constraints or just taking us for a ride. In my opinion Preston is being taken for one big ride by the Parish Council and, it’s costing you a bundle of cash to boot!! If you knew how it should be the chances are you would agree. I shouldn’t really bother because I don’t have the power to change things but I’m shouting about what I see as an injustice to me personally, I’m not trying to change the council. I’m certainly not making friends doing this, so if it means I take some stick along the way, that’s fine at least I had the gumption to oppose them and speak out.

Response to 'Deco'

Response to 'Deco'.

Well Deco hasn’t this been a busy night, it must be time for the pubs chucking out! You do your supported project no favours by threatening the messenger; you would do much better in commenting on the issues, For your information I do understand ‘milling’ and experienced it on a regular basis in my younger days, the object was to build and maintain aggression in soldier’s in certain units and the outcome was often not as expected. If you would like a full and private discussion on milling, the units who used the technique, it’s origins, at least up to a certain year I would be pleased to oblige but, please don’t threaten me because that’s a waste of your time! And yes I would say exactly the same thing after it only louder and more often, whatever the outcome, I suspect you know how it works! Hope that answers you.

Let's be calm.

Someone else who would rather attack me than respond to any issues I raise and by doing so only damage their own cause, thankfully they are in a very small minority and this kind of comment is of no consequence to me. If 'Deco' would like to rethink his approach I will be happy to engage with him but I will never be bullied into silence. Please pick the fight with what I say and prove me wrong by putting forward an alternative account or view and supporting it.

Anyway 'Deco', thanks for the comment at least you had the gumption to pen it.

Submitted Post by E-mail from a Preston resident.

Submitted post by E-mail from a Preston resident.

We have been asked to put this on the blog as a post rather than as a comment as we believe the author wasn't able to post as a comment, pleased to oblige and hope this meets your request. I think it is meant to support the Play Park and thank you for taking the time to submit it.


Printed as we received it.

As a resident of Preston for the past few years I have often wondered what goes on at these mysterious council meetings. It would seems the council do what they will with our money and the new play park, from recent findings by another Preston resident, seems to have uncovered yet another soon to be hole in our finances. When will this council get a grip with what the people of Preston really want and how about some transparency in their actions.

Dont get me wrong I am all for Preston moving forward but a council member having an invested interest in a business deal funded by the council is surely on step too far. I would like to thank the poster of this blog for highlighting these things. I'm sure if more residents read these posts they would question the payment of their taxes at the end of the month. They have to remember...It's our money you are whittling away....One day you will be brought to account for your actions!

What is the big problem with giving kids a place to play? I think the poster of this blog does a good job by telling us of these things. I think he would do better by representing us as a candidate on the council. Surely the play park is a progressive move for Preston regardless of who is funding it.  But this blokes right the council should be in charge for the good of residents and residents should support him. So what if we have to put a few quid in to make our village better? I think the writer of this blog should wait til the play park is completed if it can be completed and then lets see if they make an appearance on the park for the phto shoot

Response to comments.

Response to comments.

There has been a couple of comments on my previous post, thank you for reading and taking the time to post those comments. The short answer to the second comment is “no” I have no wish or intention to become involved with the Play Park. That doesn’t mean I totally disagree with it, it may surprise you to learn that I actually agree there is a need for a Play Park, I also agree that a good position for a Play Park is the currently proposed site.

My problem is with the vision, approach and methodology of achieving it, to me it would appear to be ad-hoc and self-defeating and that doesn’t help the project, people involved with it or the intended end users, children. At this point I believe the project is in dire need of a total rethink and evaluation of just where it is today and the possible options for carrying it forward to a successful conclusion, neither I nor anyone else can know what those options are until the re-evaluation process is complete but I do believe that process must start as soon as possible to avoid the potential liabilities that I believe are currently waiting in the wings. As I have said in my recent post, I really do hope things can be turned around because that’s in the best interests of all concerned.

Carol Osgerby has also commented on “Preston Village Debate” which I would like to respond to. I have never assumed that all elected to public posts or, all who sit on charitable committees are devious or dishonest, Quite the opposite in fact, I have as far as I’m aware never included all such people as that would be ridiculous indeed, I have always limited my comments to Preston Parish Council and the Charities operated in their name. In that regard I have never included all who are elected to that body or Charities, I have gone to great pains to clarify my grave concerns relating to just a few members (4 out of the 13) of those bodies, the same people in each case I might add. I have also stated very clearly what those concerns are and my reasons for them. Therefore your comment is wholly incorrect.

If you wish to disagree with my views you are entitled to do so but please deal with the specific issues instead of ignoring them (you have never commented on any issue, you have always commented on me as a person, someone you have never met) and apparently pretending the issues I raise don’t exist! I would be very pleased to engage with you in discussion on any issue I have raised in any public forum.

I’m afraid it’s you who are making assumptions by “assuming” that I wish to “hold a public body to account”, I have no such desire, an individual is highly unlikely to succeed in that endeavour, you should realise that, unless they are prepared to fund a legal process and devote a very great deal of their time and energy doing so, at this point I am not prepared to do either therefore your assumption is again misplaced. My aim is to speak my mind as I honestly see things and make other people aware of how our council operates, by all means disagree with me I would welcome that and I would enjoy the resulting discussion.

If you or anybody else can convince me that I’m wrong I will retract any “incorrect statements” and apologise fully and unreservedly on any public forum of your choice, please take up the invitation.

Please, please contain yourself, again your assuming I am so unwise, innocent and naive that I have no understanding of human frailties, goodwill or fundraising. I as a person am as susceptible to human frailties as anyone else and I am very far from perfect, as we all are in our different ways, so I am able to understand the characteristics you raise and I accept them in other people as much as I must accept my own failings. Again, can I ask that you address the issues instead of attacking me as a person, collect all the information on the Play Park to-date and then talk to me if you wish?

You say in your post that “a little more generosity of spirit would be welcome, along with less innuendo and insinuation”, with regard to the Play Park I openly questioned the wisdom of a sitting Parish Councillor using her office along with her position on the Playing Fields Charity to progress a private enterprise of raising funds for a Play Park.

That was and remains a valid and justifiable enquiry for any precept paying resident to make. No one, least of all I was accusing anyone of anything with regard to the Play Park, monies or honesty, I simply questioned their wisdom on that particular subject, 6 months later it would appear I was quite right to do so! If my concern had been taken notice of and the Play Park project re-assessed it may not have resulted in what we have to-day, it may have transpired that if the charity and Parish Council office was to be used it should have been used wholeheartedly with their full involvement and control, just maybe we may have had a Play Park up and running today?

With regard to the “generosity of spirit” you say I should adopt, after more than 3 years of trying to resolve any issues I (and others) may have with the Parish Council they have never been of such a generous spirit as to discuss any issue with either myself or others, one such issue could have been put to rest with a simple assurance from the council that I would not again be attacked personally in front of a public gallery by a councillor. The council was informed by me that I would accept such a statement to that effect and the matter would be closed, that was not to be, my interpretation is that it would probably be open season on me as an individual and I may be attacked by any councillor so minded during any meeting I dared to attend, with impunity. Needless to say I attended all meetings from that point for some time and continue to attend meetings to this day.

When challenged 3 currently sitting councillors told what can only be described as a pack of lies to an official national body conjured up between themselves to avoid the aggressor having to face the need to apologise, that’s democracy? just? kind spirited? This is only one of the issues you should be commenting on instead of attacking me as a person.

I have repeatedly requested and invited the councillors in question to help me have the matter investigated to establish the facts of the incident and possibly prove themselves to be honest and upstanding members of our community after all. Each and every time I have met with total silence and their most zealous opposition to any investigation that as far as I’m concerned seals their guilt.

I was raised to treat people as I would like them to treat me, I have always lived by that but I was also raised to treat others as they treat me, I do not feel that I have wandered from that path.

Ray Duffill commented on Carol’s post which I would like to express my agreement with, most council’s I’m sure are collective body’s that try their very best for an area and I certainly agree that it’s a good thing we have such people willing to work voluntary on our behalf. However, unlike Ray I have not attended council meetings outside of Preston so I must contain my views within Preston, our Parish Council and Charities.

Let us look at the good works councillors have achieved trying their “very best” for the residents of their area from mid 1990’s to 2011. I have it in writing from a previous Council Chairman that after approximately 15 years in control Preston Parish Council had planted some bulbs in grass verges along with a few trees and acquired land as an amenity area on Staithes Road.

It really did amount to a few bulbs and a couple of trees, I found it difficult to believe a council could boast about such a level of achievement after 15 years in office!! As for the land the council acquired as an amenity area it consisted of a postage stamp sized area where the public toilets used to stand, after demolition that land was given to the Parish Council who grassed over it.

We have 13 councillors who sit for about 2 hours each month for 11 months of the year, that’s 286 hours each year amounting to 4290 hours over their time in office. This is the equivalent of a person working full time for 2 whole years and the total achievement is a few bulbs, a couple of trees and they also managed to grass a postage stamp, not impressive by any standards. Furthermore to reach that level of achievement they spend about £20,000 of our money achieving nothing each year.

You may feel I’m been less generous than I ought to be, well, I haven’t included the time of an executive officer which amounts to a further 16 full time weeks a year or an handyman.

So what were councillors doing during those years, very little it would appear, but they did manage to find time to progress their own grand schemes for Preston as their long-standing future legacy for the village! One such scheme was the demolition of the existing Community Hall and the building of a grand new Community Hall in its place that one councillor announced would be “the best in Yorkshire” in a rousing ‘Churchillian’ speech, that statement was made by a councillor and trustee during the Community Hall Charity Meeting in early 2011. At the time others and I were opposing the demolition of the Community Hall, we felt it could be refurbished and saved to serve our community without getting the village into many hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of debt, which we would have been paying off for at least 2 to 3 generation into the future. All of what I’m saying here is in writing in 2010 by email so we are able to confirm our version of accounts.

The cost of doing all of this to us the taxpayers was 10’s of thousands of pounds and then it was all simply abandoned without a conscience being stirred, needless to say councillors refuse to discuss this but it is all recorded in council accounts and can therefore be verified.

It also must be said that spending all of our money on such schemes meant nothing to those councillors what so ever! So how can I say that? Well they spent about £10,000 on a drawing and planning permission alone in 2007 for this grand new Community Hall and then simply abandoned it without a seconds thought to getting good value for money for Preston residents. We actually know that because there is not a single document anywhere in council records from or before the date of the Planning Application and approval to the elections in 2011. While these same people are exerting a heavy influence of our parish council they will hold back the whole village and restrict any progress we wish to make. All the people that I know who also knew the council over the period in question do not believe, do not trust and have absolutely no faith in those 4 councillors.

The main culprits of that era are still councillors today and they still wield a big influence on council business today. Preston (in my view) will never move forward in any sort of meaningful way until such time as past mistakes have been recognised accepted and put right, ensuring they can never happen again and putting our village onto a good footing for a much brighter, efficient and achieving future.

More problems for the Preston Play Park Group

More Problems For Preston Play Park Group

Hi all, it’s been awhile, about 5 months I think, but that hasn’t dimmed the hits this site is getting, almost 6,000 to-date. People appear to be gently reading through the posts in chronological order, not bad and its good that people are still interested in reading the blogs.

I have been getting private messages and emails on various topics to do with the council and those have all been dealt with in a timely manner, so please forgive me if I say that I feel up-to-date, despite an absence of 5 months!!

I did attend the Council Meeting on Monday evening (08/07/13) for the first time in about 8 months and I have to say the farce hasn’t lessened in any way. The Chairman started by telling everyone that we were all governed by the same ‘Code of Conduct’, she really should have known better. It’s councillors who are ‘governed’ by the Code of Conduct because they are the ones required to sign up to it when they take up office and from this point it went decidedly down hill.

The public are required to abide by the rules that cover council meetings, the problem with that is the council don’t publish those rules anywhere not even on their own web site so nobody knows what those rules are, so If people don't know the rules it simply enables the council to make them up as they go along!!

There was a discussion and vote on a grant to the Play Park, they eventually decided to vote in favour of a grant in an undisclosed sum because the councillor running this private project didn’t know how much of a short fall there would be! Apparently there is a Trustees meeting tonight (Wednesday 10/07) where it will be discussed again and the council will then have an extra-ordinary meeting to put a final figure on any grant they wish to give.

The councillor involved with the Play Park clearly has a financial interest and potential liability connected to the Play Park and therefore has a Prejudicial Interest in that topic and was therefore legally required to declare that interest and leave the room during the course of that debate and vote, she didn’t declare an interest and Instead sat in council throughout and even contributed during the debate, when it came to the vote she said she would prefer not to vote on the subject and abstained, it really is a complete farce!!

The Play Park seems to be getting some attention at the moment so if I can just recap on old ground. This blog was assured by Play Park supporters that the whole village voted for this, so why is it in so much trouble? We did ask for certain information on the Park and the Village Consultation that we were promised had been carried-out, nothing has ever come of that request so we can only conclude that statement wasn’t entirely accurate.

We were originally told (Mid to late 2012) it would cost £144,000, fundraising was going well and work on installation was expected to commence in early 2013. We were recently told via a Facebook page, “Preston the Village” that they now had the money and had an opening date penciled in for 1^st September 2013. In the same post we were also told that there was a short fall in funding of £35,000, it’s now becoming confusing you either have the money or you don’t and how does that affect any opening date? The Play Park Group were hoping to mug the council and Playing fields Charity for the balance, the Parish Council have approved in principle to donate an as yet unspecified amount and we understand the Playing fields Charity have donated or pledged an additional £17,000 (from a council/trustee source which cannot always be trusted) in addition to any previous promise of financial support.

We then have comments on “Preston the Village” that the Park is all ready for go and will be installed soon and everyone will be able to have a swing, wonderful. But hang on a minute, on that same thread we were then told “Unfortunately looking at the quote again the shortfall may be too much” and “We are struggling to get enough money to install the equipment bought by WREN. There is grassmatting, machinery hire, security, labour etc plus 20% VAT. I haven't given up but it doesn't look good. Sorry”. This is quite a serious position, why on earth has equipment been bought when they haven’t got any funds to install it? Actually it would seem there are insufficient funds to get even the basics like rubber/grass matting so what’s going on?

I don’t understand why there are so many major miscalculations and so much misunderstanding and confusion on what should be a relatively straightforward project? I’m sure people have put in a lot of hard work and I applaud that, unfortunately hard work is no substitute for ability and that appears to be the lacking ingredient in the managing of this project along with a distinct lack of business acumen.

If I understand the funding criteria for WREN (there’s no guarantee I do!) they need an assurance that full funding with their donation is in place for the whole project to be completed, i.e. installed and available for use as intended on any application prior to WREN funds being released!! So how has WREN money been spent when it is nowhere near fully funded, the potential consequences are now getting very serious!!

The Play Park Group probably have 3 main options,

1.              Get somebody at the reigns who actually knows what they’re doing.

2.              Cut your cloth to suite your pocket and abandon any grand ideas.

3.              Abandon the project altogether.

The problem with No. 3 is, any funds that are currently held or have been spent to-date will have to be accounted for and where ever possible returned to the donor. Any equipment that has been bought with donated cash will need to be disposed of which may well result in a financial short fall in return to the Donor.

We must not forget the Parish Council and Preston Playing Fields Charity are deeply involved in all of this, we did question the wisdom of a Parish Councillor using the Parish Council name and Charity of which they are a trustee as a financial vehicle and holding account for this project, we were assured that the project was to be entirely privately funded and no public funds would be involved, that was never a realistic position!

I suspect the Parish Council’s name and the Playing Fields Charity name has been peddled to generate grants and funds for this project, otherwise why would you need to be a councillor to do it? If this project is not taken hold of by a competent person(s) there is the risk that it will go badly wrong and reflect poorly on the Parish Council, Charity and village as a whole, it also has the potential to place a heavy financial liability on public funds because of the way it has been organised and handled.

I say “potential” because I don’t know what methods have been used to secure funds/grants but I would think they were donated towards the purchase and installation of equipment, no business or organisation in their right mind would give money to spend on equipment to simply leave to rot away unused.

Simply purchasing the equipment would not satisfy the contract it must also be installed and available for use as intended in order to complete the agreement, if it is not installed and available for use there is potentially a breach of contract and the donor would therefore be entitled to ask for the return of any donation in order that it may be made available to some other deserving cause. If the Play Park Group has spent that money and therefore unable to return the funds it could fall to the Parish Council (if funds have been raised in their name and after reviewing the application criteria I suspect it has) to refund the money and that could be a substantial loss to our public funds.

This is looking increasing like most projects that the Parish Council gets involved with, a grand idea which sounds simple so they plough ahead without any risk analysis, skilled project management and no plan, just something on the back of a fag packet. The end result is inevitably a substantial loss to the public purse of Preston. We have seen this same scenario play out a number of times with Preston Parish Council and the end result is always a net loss to the parish, to date amounting to 10’s of thousands of public pounds over the last 6 years.

Isn't it about time the Parish Council developed a strong policy to control this kind of behaviour by individual councillors running their own private schemes in order to eliminate this kind of risk to the public funds of the Parish?  

Is there any brave person who can take hold of this mess and turn it around? I really do hope there is.